Need to be clearer on the cards; there’s enough redundancy in the 1ac that a card or two could be eliminated without much cost. Especially with this aff, you need the conceptual clarity with the 1AC – so there is a basis for the spin later.
Time allocation on DAs is way too small. If neg has no offense, you will almost always win. Time lines on case and counterplan need to be set and followed
Still behind on the CP – this is a research need.
Use the methodology argument from case more. Neg has pretty much dropped it.
Drew
You need to be more efficient on case coverage – and get to prolif. Blip the neg labels, just enough to get me to the spot on the flow; yuour saying as much or more than the neg did.
You need to explain what is meant by adopting the feminist methodology and how that relates to spillover and other areas. Apply it to the DA’s
Have a K page on the DA’s that groups them and indicts assumptions, then answer each directly. The impact of the K part should be to dispute the truth claims of the DA’s; analytics and cards on the specific DA’s should do the same. So for example, a K/arg coupling like: the need for total hegemony is based on false, masculine assumptions; the marginal link from the plan is so small as to never occur.
I don’t think “heg not sustainable” is a take out argument. Sustained for years – time frame difference, smoother transition, etc
I’m not sure that your CP answers apply. This is not regulation; it is elimination of demand like
Hari
Case arguments are redundant in a number of spots – e.g. utility
I think you need a fiat abuse, extra T or something on why I can’t vote for the perfect feminist world - - and that’s why this plan would not change much of anything.
INR pretty much fails to argue directly against the 2 most important aff case claims: the structural violence claim and the methodology argument.
Jonathan
More cards in 2NC are good, try to read at least one on each argument you go for – another on CP solvency, answer to heg not sustainable, etc
Frame the CP role in the debate better – not only solves prostitution but masculine perspective, methodology etc. Point out it is the same approach as the aff – eliminating demand for prostitutes.
Prolif would have been a better DA to go for – as far as masculine assumptions are concerned. Heg has us making partiarchial assumptions; prolif has Korea doing so.
Priyanka
Need to be clearer on the cards; there’s enough redundancy in the 1ac that a card or two could be eliminated without much cost. Especially with this aff, you need the conceptual clarity with the 1AC – so there is a basis for the spin later.
Time allocation on DAs is way too small. If neg has no offense, you will almost always win. Time lines on case and counterplan need to be set and followed
Still behind on the CP – this is a research need.
Use the methodology argument from case more. Neg has pretty much dropped it.
Drew
You need to be more efficient on case coverage – and get to prolif. Blip the neg labels, just enough to get me to the spot on the flow; yuour saying as much or more than the neg did.
You need to explain what is meant by adopting the feminist methodology and how that relates to spillover and other areas. Apply it to the DA’s
Have a K page on the DA’s that groups them and indicts assumptions, then answer each directly. The impact of the K part should be to dispute the truth claims of the DA’s; analytics and cards on the specific DA’s should do the same. So for example, a K/arg coupling like: the need for total hegemony is based on false, masculine assumptions; the marginal link from the plan is so small as to never occur.
I don’t think “heg not sustainable” is a take out argument. Sustained for years – time frame difference, smoother transition, etc
I’m not sure that your CP answers apply. This is not regulation; it is elimination of demand like
Hari
Case arguments are redundant in a number of spots – e.g. utility
I think you need a fiat abuse, extra T or something on why I can’t vote for the perfect feminist world - - and that’s why this plan would not change much of anything.
INR pretty much fails to argue directly against the 2 most important aff case claims: the structural violence claim and the methodology argument.
Jonathan
More cards in 2NC are good, try to read at least one on each argument you go for – another on CP solvency, answer to heg not sustainable, etc
Frame the CP role in the debate better – not only solves prostitution but masculine perspective, methodology etc. Point out it is the same approach as the aff – eliminating demand for prostitutes.
Prolif would have been a better DA to go for – as far as masculine assumptions are concerned. Heg has us making partiarchial assumptions; prolif has Korea doing so.